On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:24:11PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2017-03-17 21:02 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernel...@gmail.com>: > > 2017-03-17 4:02 GMT+08:00 kernel test robot <fengguang...@intel.com>: > >> Greetings, > >> > >> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core > >> > >> commit 8a8c69c32778865affcedc2111bb5d938b50516f > >> Author: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > >> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 4 16:04:35 2016 +0200 > >> Commit: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > >> CommitDate: Thu Mar 16 09:46:22 2017 +0100 > >> > >> sched/core: Add rq->lock wrappers > >> > >> The missing update_rq_clock() check can work with partial rq->lock > >> wrappery, since a missing wrapper can cause the warning to not be > >> emitted when it should have, but cannot cause the warning to trigger > >> when it should not have. > >> > >> The duplicate update_rq_clock() check however can cause false warnings > >> to trigger. Therefore add more comprehensive rq->lock wrappery. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> > >> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > >> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efa...@gmx.de> > >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > >> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > > > > Please refer to: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/16/1131 > > I have another version of patch which utilizes raw_spin_lock_irqsave() > instead of rq_lock_irqsave() in __balance_callback() as before, which > one do you like, Peterz?
Hurm.. the raw_spin_lock_irqsave() one I suspect. No point in pinning and then unpinning.
